Tenney, Ballister & Co. v. New England Protective Union, Division No. 172
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit on four promissory notes, and for goods sold. One of the defendants pleaded in abatement, to which the plaintiffs replied. All the other defendants upon whom service was made pleaded non assumpsit. Trial by the court, by consent of parties, December Term, 1863, Barrett, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on four promissory notes, and for goods sold. One of the defendants pleaded in abatement, to which the plaintiffs replied. All the other defendants upon whom service was made pleaded non assumpsit. Trial by the court, by consent of parties, December Term, 1863, Barrett, J., presiding. It was proved that in 1850 the defendants formed an association under the style of the New England Protective Union, Division No. 172, for the purpose of doing ordinary mercantile business, in the village of South Londonderry, and adopted a constitution and bylaws, and did business down to about the…
1Opinion of the CourtKellogg, J.
No copy of the plea in abatement, or of the defendants’ constitution, by-laws, and records, having been furnished to us, we must assume that, in the judgment of counsel, the references to these papers in the briefs are sufficient for the purposes of the hearing in this court. We are informed by the briefs that the plea in abatement and the defence to the action both rest on the alleged *67fact that the defendant Pierce had ceased to be a member of the partnership of the defendants before the debts which are the subject of the suit were contracted.
From the facts found by the county court, it…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McNeish v. U. S. Hulless Oat Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- Johnson v. PaineSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Willis v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- Engvall v. BuchieWashington Supreme Court · 1913